why do conference championships matter in the CFP discussion????

quote:

---

If they win, it puts them a whole game over someone who didn't go to their Confence Championship from another conference

---

sure its another data point, but the actual conference championship honor itself should have no bearing on the committee

1. There's only, what, 3 teams that aren't in a conference? Play a good schedule like Notre Dame and it doesn't matter.

2. Valid argument, but all that does is get you to the Conference title. The whole "you can only play who's on the schedule" argument comes into play here.

3. Having a Championship Game in a Round Robin conference is dumb anyway. The Big XII only did it because TCU and Baylor got left out because they didn't play a title game.

4. This is basically the "we are better than Conference Champion X" argument with no real proof to support it. If you don't even make your conference championship game, what argument do you have to be in the playoff?

quote:

---

If they win, it puts them a whole game over someone who didn't go to their Confence Championship from another conference

---

Uhm, no it doesn't...?

quote:

---

The two best in a conference have an almost half chance to be in the same division

---

And the team that wins typically goes to the championship game. With large conferences, at least you get a matchup where the best 2 teams in the conference may not have played (i.e., Clemson/Miami). And it beats the 3 way tie in a round robin conference.

quote:

---

1. Not every team is in a conference

---

Army, BYU, and Notre Dame are the only teams not in a conference.

quote:

---

2. A conference championship is dependent on your schedule. Sometimes your crossover games are easy, like if Bama had Vandy and a bad Tennessee while Auburn has Georgia and a good South Carolina for example.

---

True, but despite Bama having an easier road, they still didn't win the Iron Bowl. They were left out.

quote:

---

3. The only P5 conference that crowns a champion from a true round robin is the Big XII, and say a 7-2 team beats a 9-0 team in the championship game. The "champion" is now 8-2 and the "runner up" is 9-1.

---

The Big 12 has problems, and their conference Title game is a joke. They should have added BYU and Memphis when they had the chance.

quote:

---

4. Sometimes a conference will have a GOAT type of team like '11 LSU going into the bowls. That in no way should diminish what anyone else in the conference did or how they compare to the competition, bc Bama that year made the most of the chance they shouldn't have got

---

Well, if you don't win your division, you're clearly not the best team in the country. In Bama's case, they may have been the second best team in the country, but that was debatable. There was another 1 loss team that had won its division and then won its conference title game. While Bama should be commended for making the most of its opportunity, it is always much harder for the team that won the first game to win a rematch. That is the problem Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma will face on Saturday. All of those teams are facing off against teams they beat during the regular season in a conference Title Game. I would not be shocked to see more than one of those teams get upset by formerly vanquished foes.

Conference Championships matter because it's one more game played against a typically top-tier foe. It gives a team the change to pad their resume and prove that if they're the best team of those 10-14 teams with which they share a conference, that they might be among the 4 best teams in America.

ESPN is stupid. Fans want to see good, fair competition, new matchups, not ones that were already decided.

I was a strong opponent to 1 vs 2 rematch talks of M-OSU in 2006.

Rematches in college football are lame. That's why the sport is so great. Stakes are so high every game.

If Bama backdoors in and Auburn has to play them again I don't care what happens, in my book Auburn wins the game becaus they already beat Bama and Bama didn't belong in the playoff to begin with.

I still consider LSU the rightful 2011 BCS National Champs. Alabama is the 2011 bullshite Crock of shite National Champs.

quote:

---

So now Auburn has to play Bama again because ESPN thinks that brings in money...

---

Auburn might end up having to play Bama, Georgia, AND Clemson all twice (granted, they'd only have to beat Clemson once).

I will say that it is possible for a team in the NFL to have to play the same team twice in the regular season and then again in the playoffs. It is possible that a team could lose the first two meetings and then win in the playoff. However, in the NFL, 12 teams out of 32 make the playoffs. Teams play 16 games. If you lose less than 7 games, you're nearly always in. If you lose 7 or 8, some years you're in, and some you're not. The NFL is much more forgiving, while in college football. UCF could end up as an undefeated conference champion and not make the playoffs while a 2 loss team does. College football has such inequality of schedules, such a lack of interplay between its top teams, and so many more teams in general, that discerning which teams truly are the 4 best is a hell of a lot harder.

I mean, imagine the following scenario:
Clemson wins the ACC Title Game
UCF wins the AAC
Auburn wins the SEC
USC wins the PAC 12
TCU wins the Big 12
Ohio State wins the Big 10
Alabama is sitting at 11-1 with no division or conference title.

Which 4 teams are the best?
Well, Clemson beat Auburn and they have just one loss, so they should be in, but what about the other 3 spots? UCF is undefeated, but their schedule was nowhere near as rigorous as the other teams. There are 4 conference Champs with 2 losses, an undefeated mid-major, and Bama with 1 loss but no title. Out of those 4 2-loss champs, 1-loss Bama (who's only game against a top 10 opponent was a loss at the hands of one of those 2-loss champs).

There isn't really a purely objective way to pick, and THAT'S the problem! UCF, USC, TCU, Ohio State, and Auburn never played one another. How can they truly be measured against one another objectively?